The Emergence and Design of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) Curtis J. Bonk, Indiana University Mimi Miyoung Lee, University of Houston Thomas C. Reeves, The University of Georgia Thomas H. Reynolds, National University Bonk, C. J., Lee. M. M., Reeves, T. C., & Reynolds, T. H. (in press). The emergence and design of massive open online courses (MOOCs). In R. A. Reiser, & J. V. Demsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (4th Ed.), (pp.?). Boston, MA: Pearson. During the past two decades, the Internet has made available a wealth of interactive learning resources, unique forms of social interaction and collaboration, and novel types of content and course delivery. Among the more exciting new ways of learning delivery is the MOOC or “massive open online course.” The MOOC, while certainly controversial, has arguably brought online learning to the attention of the public at large like nothing before. Though the term itself is less than a decade old, dozens of MOOC vendors and software companies as well as a barrage of reports, announcements, courses, and programs related to MOOCs have emerged during the past few years. There are growing numbers of MOOC developers and instructors, MOOC participants or “learners,” MOOC researchers, MOOC books and journals, and MOOC lists (for an historical perspective on MOOCs, including key events leading up to them, see Moe, 2015). As inevitably occurs with a new phenomenon of this kind, there are enthusiastic MOOC advocates as well as skeptical critics. MOOCs Defined The term MOOC was coined by Dave Cormier from the University of Prince Edward Island, Canada. Cormier came up with this term when he noticed that his colleagues, George Siemens, at the time, from the University of Manitoba, and Stephens Downes, from the Canadian Research Council, had opened their online course titled “Connectivism and Connective Knowledge” well beyond the 25 enrolled and tuition-paying students to more than 2,200 learners who participated for free (Downes, 2011). As such, the MOOC descriptor is basically an attempt to provide unlimited participation in an educational experience via the Web, typically for free. Aside from the increased enrollment numbers and open access to course content, MOOCs often include both traditional instructional components and those more typically found in online courses, such as discussion forums and interactive exercises. There is some controversy regarding what actually constitutes a MOOC. For example, some argue that MOOCs are not truly open since the content is often not available for reuse, such as when it is taken down once the course is over (Wiley, 2015). For others the word “massive” is misleading or difficult to pin down—at what point do we consider the enrollment massive? Other courses may be miscategorized as MOOCs since they may not actually be open to anyone, as with Google’s offering MOOCs internally to company employees and not the outside world in its G2G (Googler to Googler) initiative on topics like public speaking, parenting, Python programming, data visualization, mindfulness, and meditation (Kessler, 2013). Clearly, such internal offerings do not meet openness criteria. Concerns have also been expressed about the degree to which MOOC offerings are over-represented by elite U.S. institutions such as Harvard, 1 M.I.T., and Stanford, and whether the MOOC movement perpetuates the perceived hegemony of Western culture and the English language to less developed parts of the world. cMOOcs, xMOOCs, and pMOOCs As noted above, the MOOC trend began when several instructors in Canada taught courses that were free and open for outside participation and connections (Moe, 2015). Given that Stephen Downs and George Siemens tested ideas related to an emerging learning theory called “connectivism” when they taught their first MOOC, courses based on their ideals have come to be known as connectivist or cMOOCs (Kop, Fournier, & Mak, 2011). In a cMOOC, fostering greater social interaction through sharing and negotiation of meaning is encouraged. Importantly, everyone in such courses has the potential to be a vital co-instructor or source of knowledge. For instance, each participant may have a blog to reflect on a course module or on resources shared by others, as well as provide some resources of their own. Others might post links to such blogs using various social media tools including Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and LinkedIn. In fact, participants will often mark their Twitter posts with a hash tag related to the course, thereby expanding as well as uniquely connecting course content resources (Kop et al., 2011). There might also be a course wiki in the MOOC for accumulating resources, in addition to tools for visualizing participant contributions and aggregating resources. Active participation through the production of digital artifacts related to the course often exceeds course expectations and can help participants reflect on their creative processes (Kop et al., 2011). It was not long, however, before other individuals and institutions envisioned the possibilities for greater access to content. By 2010, for instance, universities such as Stanford, MIT, Harvard, Duke University, the University of Edinburgh, the University of Pennsylvania, and many other well-established institutions were experimenting with the notion of a MOOC. In the fall of 2011, Stanford offered several MOOCs that reached over 100,000 enrolled learners. Most of these massive courses were in the fields of computer science and engineering. Not surprisingly, such courses relied on traditional models of instruction, including the use of streamed or prerecorded lectures as well as discussion forums and online tests graded by computing technology. These types of MOOCs were labeled xMOOCs. Needless to say, not all such courses can rely solely on objectively scored exams; some xMOOCs, in fact, have experimented with peer assessment as well as with different forms of certification or badging for course completion. The widely publicized intent of xMOOCs was the delivery of content to masses of people with the hope of democratizing education. However, many issues arose and arguably continue with the xMOOC instructional approach--related to a perceived lack of individualization, limited feedback, a sense of isolation or loneliness among learners, and weak forms of assessment. Many participants report significant difficulties keeping up with the pace of these online offerings while working full time or fulfilling other personal and professional commitments. Accordingly, the attrition rates in xMOOCs are often reported at 90 percent or above. Beginning in 2013, the pMOOC model began to emerge (Reeves & Hedberg, 2014). In a pMOOC, participants collaborate online to complete a project (e.g., design a memorial) or 2 address a problem (e.g., develop a plan for urban renewal of a declining area of a town or city). For example, in a pMOOC focused on open educational resources (OER), preservice or inservice teachers might be called upon to work together to produce OER that could be used by themselves and other teachers. Figure 1 outlines the differences among cMOOCs, xMOOCs, and pMOOCs. Type of MOOC cMOOC xMOOC pMOOC Learner Role Active Passive Active Instructor Role Co-learner Sage on video stage Guide on the side Learning Theory Connectivism Behaviorism Constructivism Primary Pedagogy Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge integration duplication production Metaphor “We link movies” “We watch movies” “We make movies” Development Learning Instructional Educational design Approach design design research Primary Type of Self Assessment External and/or Self and/or Client Assessment Peer Assessment Assessment Funding Source Seat of the pants Large external Moderate client funding funding provided funding Figure 1. Differences among three types of MOOCs (Reeves & Hedberg, 2014). Additional Types of MOOCs What has become clear in the short history of MOOCs is that benefits of MOOC participation depend on how it is delivered and the extent to which it meets audience needs and expectations. Increasingly, MOOCs are finding their way into lifelong learning and professional development situations such as those intended for K-12 teachers (Laurillard, 2014), healthcare personnel, or business leaders. Such MOOCs are referred to as “professional development” MOOCs (i.e., PD- MOOCs) (Bonk, Lee, Reeves, & Reynolds, 2015). These PD-MOOCs vary in length from a few days or meetings to several months. Some colleges and universities are catering to their extensive alumni and donor base with these types of MOOCs; in effect, bringing prior students and supporters back to the campus, albeit virtually. As might be expected, PD-MOOCs often are designed to upgrade the workplace skills of their participants—such as learning about a new statistical software tool, regulatory procedure, mortgage lending practice, or management style. Importantly, participants can sign up from their computers or mobile devices and participate in a PD-MOOC to quickly access the course content from wherever and whenever it is convenient. No longer must a person apply for admission, find funding, and then travel to a campus for several months for classes. With a MOOC, the course is online and typically without direct costs, although those who desire some sort of official recognition for MOOC completion may be required to pay a fee. 3 In addition to PD-MOOCs, other types of MOOCs have emerged during the past few years. For instance, remedial MOOCs are designed to help students who have fallen behind academically or lack sufficient skills or competencies to move to the next level. Remedial MOOCs often respond to the lack of sufficient reading, writing, mathematical, or general study skills among first time college entrants (Bandi-Rao & Devers, 2015). Other types of MOOCs may be aimed at learners who want to take advanced placement (AP) tests. For example, learners can enroll in courses from edX’s High School Initiative (edX, 2014b) with more than 40 high school and AP exam preparation courses in such areas as calculus, computer science, biology, Spanish, introductory psychology, and physics.